From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: kus Kusche Klaus <kus@keba.com>
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>,
John Ronciak <john.ronciak@gmail.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john.ronciak@intel.com,
ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: RE: My vote against eepro* removal
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:45:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1137804346.3241.38.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AAD6DA242BC63C488511C611BD51F367323325@MAILIT.keba.co.at>
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 11:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
> For a non-full preemption kernel, your patch moves the 500 us
> piece of code from kernel to thread context, so it really
> improves things. But is 500 us something to worry about in a
> non-full preemption kernel?
Yes, absolutely. Once exit_mmap (a latency regression which was
introduced in 2.6.14) and rt_run_flush/rt_garbage_collect (which have
always been problematic) are fixed, 500usecs will stick out like a sore
thumb even on a regular PREEMPT kernel.
Also, you should be able to capture this latency in /proc/latency trace
by configuring an -rt kernel with PREEMPT_DESKTOP and hard/softirq
preemption disabled.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-21 0:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-20 10:19 My vote against eepro* removal kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-20 11:02 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2006-01-21 0:45 ` Lee Revell [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-24 7:38 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-23 11:01 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-23 20:23 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2006-01-20 11:27 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-20 10:51 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-20 11:05 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2006-01-20 9:37 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-20 9:55 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2006-01-21 0:40 ` Lee Revell
2006-01-21 1:19 ` John Ronciak
2006-01-21 1:30 ` Lee Revell
2006-01-21 2:01 ` John Ronciak
2006-01-21 3:56 ` Lee Revell
2006-01-19 10:26 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-19 16:20 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-01-19 17:16 ` John Ronciak
2006-01-19 19:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-19 22:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-19 10:08 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-19 7:19 kus Kusche Klaus
2006-01-19 7:24 ` Lee Revell
2006-01-19 7:42 ` Arjan van de Ven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1137804346.3241.38.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=john.ronciak@gmail.com \
--cc=john.ronciak@intel.com \
--cc=johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru \
--cc=kus@keba.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.